1. The short question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether an application for revision filed by convicted applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. finally abates on his death pending hearing.

2. Impugning the legality and correctness of judgment dated 18/10/2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 293/2002, affirming the order dated 26/08/2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in Criminal Case No. 2396/2002, by which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded conviction for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act, 1915’) and awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine sentence of Rs.25,000/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months, the instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The core facts leading to filing of this revision application are as under:-

3.1 On 02/05/2002, 310 Pauwa (more than 50 bulk liters) of foreign liquor was seized from the possession of the applicant leading to recording First Information Report (FIR, Exhibit-P/5) and making a Panchanama (Exhibit-P/1). The Investigating Officer seized the aforesaid liquor vide seizure memo (Exhibit-P/3), which was duly sealed and after making spot map (Exhibit-P/4), the property was deposited in the concerned Police Station (Exhibit-P/6), which was duly identified by the Excise Sub-Inspector vide Exhibit-P/7. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed in the jurisdictional criminal Court, in which, charges under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1915 was framed against the applicant.

3.2 Applicant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence during the course of examination, the prosecution exhibited seven documents (Exhibits- P/1 to P/7) and examined five witnesses, whereas, the defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

3.3 Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as ‘Cr.P.C.’).

3.4 Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its judgment dated 26/08/2002 held the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1915 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine sentence of Rs.25,000/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months.

3.5 On appeal preferred by the applicant under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, by its judgment dated 18/10/2002, maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant and dismissed the appeal and challenging the said judgment, instant revision as stated has been filed.

4. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below have committed manifest illegality in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1915, as such, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside.

5. At the outset, Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/non- applicant would submit that since the applicant has died during the pendency of the revision, as such, the criminal revision stand abated and deserves to be dismissed as abated.

6. While replying the objection with regard to maintainability of the criminal revision, Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that it is a case of composite jail sentence as well as fine sentence and therefore, the criminal revision will not abate and has to be heard on merits, as such, criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the t